The intersection in Chester, PA where local leaders hope to locate a major supermarket

By Dan Pohlig

This article in Wednesday’s Daily News about how the current state budget impasse is halting efforts to get a supermarket built in the city of Chester got me thinking about how government has embraced the “supermarket” as the be-all and end-all of improving public health in low income areas.

In fact, in the very limited role I once had in “almost” shaping public policy, I also was a proponent of shoehorning these warehouse-sized behemoths into as many neighborhoods in Philadelphia as we could.  More about my checkered past in a minute.  What proponents of “Big Supermarket” in the government are missing is how, as a policy choice, using a supermarket to improve public health is like using a hammer to kill a fly… on a window.  You might get the job done, but it’s going to be expensive and have some other bad consequences.

The lack of fresh, locally grown and raised food in Chester gives at least one government (PA state) the chance on the back end to fix some pretty big policy mistakes by another government (federal) on the front end.

My conversion from die hard fan of the local big box food mart has been in the process for a while but finally came full circle after I took in the movie Food, Inc. a couple weeks ago.

It’s not giving too much away to say that the gist of the movie is not something that we haven’t seen or read about before in such films as Fast Food Nation (and the book on which it was based), Super Size Me, The Omnivore’s Dilemma and the very dark and disturbing, if short-lived and grammatically challenged, 10 Items or Less on TBS.  (What?  That was supposed to be funny?  And it’s still on the air?)  In short, the way food is produced, genetically and chemically altered, marketed, packaged, shipped and consumed in this country is completely broken.

In the movie, helicopter flyovers show cattle raising facilities and hidden cameras reveal chicken farms that look like something out of a dystopian, Mad Max-style future.  But aside from attacking the production end of food and questioning governmental policies and regulations that encourage overproduction of unhealthy food while not doing enough to make nutritious fruits and vegetables affordable, the film provides a different look at the typical, suburban-style supermarket.  Compared to times in the not-too-distant past when people had to grow or kill their own fare, the supermarket makes it easy by ensuring that we don’t have to do so much as push open a door.  And it makes it especially easy to find the corn chips, cookies and soda by putting them in the middle of the store, by the front door and on the end of the aisles.

I mentioned that at one point I had a peculiar fascination and admiration for these climate-controlled, flourescent-lit, fortresses of food.  During the 2003 mayor’s race when I was a lowly research wonk looking into issues that could be used by our candidate to gain traction in areas that traditionally sided with the city’s machine-backed candidate, I wrote a tidy little paper outlining the problem  of inadequate supermarket access and what policies the city could enact to combat it.  Being lowly, I lacked the assertiveness to push the paper into the candidate’s hands for his approval so it went nowhere.  Since then, State Representative Evans has been the champion of supermarket access in Philly and has done a remarkable job providing incentives for stores in previously under served areas.  In fact, I had been making it a point to let at least one former colleague know every time I saw a supermarket-related item in the paper and included the note, “see, we would have won!”

But now, having learned what evil lies behind most of the food in most of the supermarkets in this country, I’m now wondering whether I shouldn’t have been a little more specific about what parts of a supermarket the government should be encouraging in low income neighborhoods (or any neighborhood, for that matter).  The typical supermarket, which most likely would occupy such a 12-acre parcel mentioned in the Chester story, might have some fresh food but it also has a whole lot of really cheap bad, processed food.  And even the fresh food is more likely to have been raised in one of those cow or chicken armageddons or grown in South America than come from a farm within a 50-mile radius of this region.  By giving over state funding to put such a place into Chester, “government” will have subsidized every step of a process that ends up making unhealthy, empty calories so easily accessible and affordable for folks who are unlikely to be able to afford the RDA of fruits and vegetables.  Many would argue that it’s up to the individual to make healthy food choices for his or her family.  But when a pound of broccoli costs as much as three frozen dinners, many families are forced to go with the calories that will make them not hungry, not the ones that will make them healthy.

The fact that Chester has no major supermarkets makes it an interesting place to conduct some policy experiments.  If the state is willing to kick in $4 million (eventually, once Budget Crisis ‘09 subsides), why not use it instead for facilities that offer fresh, locally grown and raised, chemical-free food and for ongoing subsidies that make these foods affordable for families at the median income level of Chester, PA?  I’m not saying that some sort of “nanny state” should make it so that folks in Chester shouldn’t also have the option to buy the bad stuff, just that $4 million of state funds shouldn’t be used to make it easier.

Weaver's Way known for its emphasis on locally grown produce opened a store in the West Oak Lane section of Philadelphia

What would such a facility look like?  It could be anything from outdoor farmer markets (which would leave plenty of money for subsidizing the local producers so that the consumers’ costs are held down) to a well-designed supermarket-like building (with air conditioning and automatic doors and everything!) that simply lacks all the processed crap you often find in the middle of the store and offers fruits from Lancaster, vegetables from New Jersey and eggs from Lehigh County.

Perhaps this is a case where I’m holding the good hostage in pursuit of the perfect and keeping a community desparate for anything other than a fast food place from getting other options.   Since it seems clear that the budget woes are making the good impossible, why not take some time to really think through what the goals of this policy/funding should be?  More access to Twinkies and Ho-Ho’s or a way to get fresh, local food into a community?

Dan Pohlig is a former WHYY blogger and self-proclaimed militant bicyclist